South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down abortion ban

[Merrill]

I'm certainly not advocating a "leftist utopia".

There's a lot of middle ground between that and strict traditionalism.

One doesn't need to be a "free love hippy" to hold the view that society doesn't need to be structured around a belief system that says "Men are above women, and womens' happiness is contingent on how happy they can keep their man"

When I talk to a lot of the "trad bros" online in other forums, they seem to advocate for the "trad" ideology
A) Because it's easy, one can simply appeal to tradition, and it doesn't involve a lot of thought or planning and there aren't a lot of dynamics to account for
B) Because they're the main benefactors of it


However, they overlook a lot of negatives when they appeal to certain time periods as "the ideal".

Domestic violence was extremely common in the 1950's, and women had very little legal recourse when it happened and the entire.

While the sexual revolution had some serious issues and introduced some problems, a lot of it was an overcorrection to the issues present in the "trad" system.


And I notice the rhetoric is still surrounding the expectations of womens behavior with regards to how it attracts a partner, and the same tone isn't there when discussing the inverse. For instance the type of behavior that gets labelled as "guys being guys", gets framed in a portrayal of "damaged goods" when referring to women who engage in the same behavior.

Or, to put it more succinctly, the "trad bro" mentality seems to be centered around "I get to sow my wild oats from age 18-20, but when I'm ready to settle down, I want a woman who's a virgin and who's content with keeping the house clean and respecting my authority"

you are not describing real traditionalism--you are describing young guys on the web talking about their conquests while saying they ultimately want traditional wives.

there is an argument for celibacy until marriage (or a least very little sexual activity), and having kids within wedlock. And no one is arguing for some system where women are forced to stay home, and where men are allowed to beat them.

Men and women have different roles and prerogatives in context of family and marriage. That doesn't mean every woman has to adhere to these roles, or even get married. But women aren't happy in our society: they are told to act like men, climb the corporate ladder, postpone having children until their late 30s, and find a guy who went to a better university, and who makes twice as much money as they do. Some women are successful at this, but most who follow this plan end up single and childless after a series of bad relationships. Some end up in bad marriages.

 

[FireDragon76]

you are not describing real traditionalism--you are describing young guys on the web talking about their conquests while saying they ultimately want traditional wives.

there is an argument for celibacy until marriage (or a least very little sexual activity), and having kids within wedlock. And no one is arguing for some system where women are forced to stay home, and where men are allowed to beat them.

Men and women have different roles and prerogatives in context of family and marriage. That doesn't mean every woman has to adhere to these roles, or even get married. But women aren't happy in our society: they are told to act like men, climb the corporate ladder, postpone having children until their late 30s, and find a guy who went to a better university, and who makes twice as much money as they do. Some women are successful at this, but most who follow this plan end up single and childless after a series of bad relationships. Some end up in bad marriages.

Women are free to choose that in modern society. They are also free to reject that.

I am somewhat sympathetic to some of the points you make- there are obviously alot of younger people that are unhappy and I encounter them in real life. More younger people need to be exposed to a more humanistic education and critical thinking in general, particularly when it comes to the messages promoted in various media. I think that's a possible solution. Not necessarily a reflexive traditionalism, but more teaching of broad, humanistic values and critical thinking skills.

Unfortunately, many on the modern political Right aren't interested in kids "deconstructing" any cultural message, they tend to only focus on repression of messages they don't like.

 

[Merrill]

I agree. Especially the "damaged goods" bit. It comes from misogynistic, and wildly outdated, notions of purity. Women and men are people, not sticks of chewing gum, and having coroful or complex histories doesn't take away from the value people can bring to real, loving relationships.

it doesn't matter if you feel the "damaged goods" description is misogynistic or outdated. Most men do have this idea. Why?

Our society encourages women to sleep around in their late-teens and through their 20s. During this period, they seek out good-looking "bad-boys", hookups, and relationships based purely on sex. Women try to get with men who are above them in the physical attractiveness scale, and in the social capital scale. The "Chads"

And when these women get to around age 30, and want to "settle down", they seek men with resources--the "reliable guy", who doesn't push-back, and who is happy just to have a wife. This guys isn't as handsome or popular as the guys she slept with in years prior.

This guy gets Chad's leftovers. This guy has to deal with the emotional, or even physical, baggage such a woman brings into the marriage. If they live in a close-knit community, they have to deal with seeing their wife's ex-lovers all over town.

Women with lots of sexual partners before marriage have a higher incidence of divorce and are less happy in marriage. There is nothing "complex" about this.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Yeah except 99% of the time it’s her fault the baby got in there in the first place.

It takes two to tango.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

there is an argument for celibacy until marriage (or a least very little sexual activity), and having kids within wedlock. And no one is arguing for some system where women are forced to stay home, and where men are allowed to beat them.

Men and women have different roles and prerogatives in context of family and marriage. That doesn't mean every woman has to adhere to these roles, or even get married. But women aren't happy in our society: they are told to act like men, climb the corporate ladder, postpone having children until their late 30s, and find a guy who went to a better university, and who makes twice as much money as they do. Some women are successful at this, but most who follow this plan end up single and childless after a series of bad relationships.

But are those arguments rooted in any inherent or objective thing that can draw a straight line from "not being celibate" to "not being able to be in a happy in a long-term relationship"? Or is the lack of being able to find a partner later in life due, in part, to external factors like society seeing previous sexual partners as "baggage" for not meeting a certain "purity code"?


And I would argue that "trad" ideology does give way to things like forms of domestic abuse and subjugation. That's not to say that it'll always happen, but it's basically fostering the environment to make it more likely. Any time it's structured around "Men are the leaders, women should not be the leaders of men. Men are to be the "heads" of the house by divine right, and get the final say in cases of dispute...women should not challenge the husband's authority", it only makes sense that it feeds into the mentality that may make a man "take action" when he feels his "role" is under threat of being usurped.

If you look at some of what was taught to young women in those days:

...when you set up the expectation that "women's existence is for the purpose of catering to what men want", it's not hard to see why that era produced more domestic abuse. (much of it that wasn't even criminalized under the laws of the day)

I'm not suggesting that you're advocating for that, I'm merely suggesting that the ideology itself has the effect of creating more of those bad situations.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

it doesn't matter if you feel the "damaged goods" description is misogynistic or outdated. Most men do have this idea. Why?

Because certain elements of society continue to spread it. Men don't develop this idea spontaneously.

Our society encourages women to sleep around in their late-teens and through their 20s. During this period, they seek out good-looking "bad-boys", hookups, and relationships based purely on sex. Women try to get with men who are above them in the physical attractiveness scale, and in the social capital scale. The "Chads"

And when these women get to around age 30, and want to "settle down", they seek men with resources--the "reliable guy", who doesn't push-back, and who is happy just to have a wife. This guys isn't as handsome or popular as the guys she slept with in years prior.

This guy gets Chad's leftovers. This guy has to deal with the emotional, or even physical, baggage such a woman brings into the marriage. If they live in a close-knit community, they have to deal with seeing their wife's ex-lovers all over town.

This is a deeply cynical and extraordinarily misogynistic view - something that I'd expect to see in the "red pill" community or "incel" groups. It completely ignores the inverse - men are far more heavily encouraged to have hookups and sleep around in their teens and twenties (seriously, consider how frequently male virginity is the butt of a joke compared to female virginity), and yet to do so does not make them "damaged goods" in society's eyes. Do you have any concerns about what "Chad's" wife might feel about seeing her husband's ex-lovers all over town or the baggage that he brings to the marriage?

This viewpoint is rooted in the idea that the only value a woman has lies in sex and reproduction. Which is just...ugh.

Women with lots of sexual partners before marriage have a higher incidence of divorce and are less happy in marriage. There is nothing "complex" about this.

Not strictly true. While women with more than ten partners prior to marriage show higher divorce rates, as do women with only two partners, women with 3-9 partners show a significantly reduced incidence of divorce. Not quite as low as women who have only had one partner, and quite a bit higher than women with no partners, but there are confounding factors there - namely, the most common reason why a woman would still be a virgin at marriage is for religious reasons, and most religions that emphasize virgin marriage also heavily frown on divorce.

Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability

American sexual behavior is much different than it used to be. Today, most Americans think premarital sex is okay, and will have three or more sexual partners before marrying. What, if anything, does premarital sex have to do with marital stability? This research brief shows that the...

ifstudies.org

 

[Belk]

it doesn't matter if you feel the "damaged goods" description is misogynistic or outdated. Most men do have this idea. Why?

Our society encourages women to sleep around in their late-teens and through their 20s. During this period, they seek out good-looking "bad-boys", hookups, and relationships based purely on sex. Women try to get with men who are above them in the physical attractiveness scale, and in the social capital scale. The "Chads"

And when these women get to around age 30, and want to "settle down", they seek men with resources--the "reliable guy", who doesn't push-back, and who is happy just to have a wife. This guys isn't as handsome or popular as the guys she slept with in years prior.

This guy gets Chad's leftovers. This guy has to deal with the emotional, or even physical, baggage such a woman brings into the marriage. If they live in a close-knit community, they have to deal with seeing their wife's ex-lovers all over town.

Women with lots of sexual partners before marriage have a higher incidence of divorce and are less happy in marriage. There is nothing "complex" about this.

From where are you getting this statistic? I very much disagree that this is the attitude of most men but I admit I have no data other then the men I know.

 

[Merrill]

Because certain elements of society continue to spread it. Men don't develop this idea spontaneously.


This is a deeply cynical and extraordinarily misogynistic view - something that I'd expect to see in the "red pill" community or "incel" groups. It completely ignores the inverse - men are far more heavily encouraged to have hookups and sleep around in their teens and twenties (seriously, consider how frequently male virginity is the butt of a joke compared to female virginity), and yet to do so does not make them "damaged goods" in society's eyes. Do you have any concerns about what "Chad's" wife might feel about seeing her husband's ex-lovers all over town or the baggage that he brings to the marriage?

This viewpoint is rooted in the idea that the only value a woman has lies in sex and reproduction. Which is just...ugh.


Not strictly true. While women with more than ten partners prior to marriage show higher divorce rates, as do women with only two partners, women with 3-9 partners show a significantly reduced incidence of divorce. Not quite as low as women who have only had one partner, and quite a bit higher than women with no partners, but there are confounding factors there - namely, the most common reason why a woman would still be a virgin at marriage is for religious reasons, and most religions that emphasize virgin marriage also heavily frown on divorce.

Counterintuitive Trends in the Link Between Premarital Sex and Marital Stability

American sexual behavior is much different than it used to be. Today, most Americans think premarital sex is okay, and will have three or more sexual partners before marrying. What, if anything, does premarital sex have to do with marital stability? This research brief shows that the...

ifstudies.org

That study you posted says women with 10 or more sex partners are the most likely to divorce, which is basically what I said.

I wouldn't consider 3-5 partners a "lot of partners"

The issue surrounding women sleeping around in their 20s is something people like you don't want to hear, but it is a reality. Have you read any women's magazines? Watched "Sex and the City"? Here is a quote from Sheryl Sandberg:

“When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. "​

It is not misogynist to point out that women have embraced this idea of bedding hot bad-bays and then "settling down" with providers after they've had their fun. Most women I've known in my life have exhibited this behavior, either knowingly or unknowingly.

Now some men do this as well, but here is the problem with your comparison. Men do not have anywhere near the access to sex and relationships that women do. Less than 20% of men are highly sexually active, have had lots of partners, and participate in hookup culture. These are the very handsome, tall, athletic, well-connected, and charismatic men. 80% of men are not hooking up, and those men also want solid relationships that might lead to marriage.

With women it is a totally different situation. Studies have shown that 66%+ of them have engaged in casual sex, with the average woman having 5 one-night stands before she is 30. These women sleep with those guys in the top 20%, and it creates a kind of harem culture. That isn't good, and believe me, guys do care about a woman's sexual past.

And let me be clear: promiscuity is wrong for both men and women. Men have their own sexual issues, and there are plenty of bad-actors out there. Women should be very suspicious of men with high body counts and who have a bunch of one-night stands. Those guys have impulse-control and honesty problems, and will make poor husbands.

We need to stop excusing hookup culture. It isn't healthy for society, and it certainly isn't Christian

 

[RocksInMyHead]

The issue surrounding women sleeping around in their 20s is something people like you don't want to hear,

Really? Mind reader, are we?

but it is a reality.

It is - I never denied it. I just deny that there are any inherent negative connotations to it.

Men do not have anywhere near the access to sex and relationships that women do. Less than 20% of men are highly sexually active, have had lots of partners, and participate in hookup culture.

The CDC would disagree with you:

NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth

Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth

www.cdc.gov

We see 25% of women reporting 10 or more partners in their lifetimes, and 41% of men. Almost 30% of men report over 15 partners. Seems to me that more men are highly sexually active than women.

With women it is a totally different situation. Studies have shown that 66%+ of them have engaged in casual sex, with the average woman having 5 one-night stands before she is 30.

These are totally different metrics compared to the one you claimed above. They're not comparable. It might help if you actually included sources for your numbers.

That isn't good, and believe me, guys do care about a woman's sexual past.

The question isn't whether they care - it's why they care. And also why you place so much emphasis on a woman's sexual history while ignoring the man's.

 

[BNR32FAN]

"Who's fault it is" is irrelevant if one is going to claim "protecting the lives of children is the utmost priority"

Especially if the measures that would be effective in reducing the demand for (and number of) abortions are being outright rejected and limited by the party seeking the abortion restrictions.


Better sex education
Better no-cost contraception options
Better social safety nets
More inclusive adoption policies
Better funding for things like school lunches
Better supplementing of child care services

All things that would either
A) prevent the unplanned pregnancy in the first place
B) make the prospect of carrying to term more approachable for someone who accidentally got pregnant

Rejecting these measures can't co-exist with the claim "protecting the lives of children and preventing as many abortions as possible is the most important thing"...because rejection of these measures means there's something else that one is prioritizing over it.

For instance, if a person says "I don't want want to have publicly funded contraception or help women financially if they opt to have the baby, that'll make my taxes go up", then they've clearly prioritized their finances over stopping abortion.

If they say "I don't want to have to pay for contraception for people, because they shouldn't be doing that before marriage", then they've prioritized their religious viewpoint over preventing abortion.


A lot of folks in the pro-life camp will often tout that preventing abortion ranks #1 on their list. However, the policy positions and rhetoric on other related issues would indicate that it's actually more like #4 or #5.
(behind things like making sure their taxes don't go up and trying to prevent people from engaging in sexual behavior that doesn't gel with their own ideological viewpoints)

I’m sorry but your stereotypical post doesn’t include me or anyone I know and I highly doubt the accuracy of these claims.

 

[Merrill]

Really? Mind reader, are we?


It is - I never denied it. I just deny that there are any inherent negative connotations to it.


The CDC would disagree with you:

NSFG - Listing N - Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth

Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth

www.cdc.gov

We see 25% of women reporting 10 or more partners in their lifetimes, and 41% of men. Almost 30% of men report over 15 partners. Seems to me that more men are highly sexually active than women.


These are totally different metrics compared to the one you claimed above. They're not comparable. It might help if you actually included sources for your numbers.


The question isn't whether they care - it's why they care. And also why you place so much emphasis on a woman's sexual history while ignoring the man's.

I have seen that CDC study, and there are several problems with it:

The biggest one is that women underreport their number of sexual partners (32%), and men overreport (41%).

Average Number of Sexual Partners: By Gender, Country, State, and

When it comes to sex — or your sexual history — it’s easy to wonder what’s “normal.” Can you have too many partners? Too few? What’s average? If you really want to know, a recent Superdrug survey has you covered. Here’s which states are doing it the most, how America compares to other countries...

www.healthline.com

Another study put the average number of sex partners for women at 19

Here's how many people the average person under 30 says they've slept with — and why they could be lying

It's easy to compare the amount of sexual partners you've had with how many others have. According to a recent survey, here's how many people the average person under 30 has had sex with. That being said, here's why you shouldn't stress about your number or anyone else's.

www.insider.com

We really don't know what the number is --a group of women with bodycounts of over 30 saying they have only slept with 4 guys wildly changes the final figures (as well as men exaggerating their number by 500%). There really isn't any *good* study out there to my knowledge.

I am older, married, and have known a lot of women. I have a good number of female friends, and I've had a good number of girlfriends. Most of them were pretty candid about their *number*. Most of the women have had around 10 partners before marriage. But one woman had like 60 (she is a hippy, free-love kind of girl). Including her in the findings throws everything off.

The longer a woman waits to marry, the more partners she is going to have, and women are delaying marriage. In the UK, the average age for women marrying is like 32.

Here is an article on one-night stands. Again, there are really no *good* studies on this either

Here's How Many One Night Stands the Average Woman Has Actually Had | Men's Health Magazine Australia

When you ask a woman how many sexual partners she's had, don't expect an honest answer

www.menshealth.com.au

Now I know you are hung up on this idea of why men might care about a woman's sexual history. I think it is pretty obvious

1. Women with lots of partners (10+) before marriage have a higher divorce rate and rate of unhappiness in marriage.
2. Women with lots of partners are more likely to have had STDs, including HPV
3. Women with lots of partners and a history of abortions can have problems conceiving children
4. Men don't want to feel they are getting compared to a roster of 20 other guys when sleeping with their wife (women don't like this either)

and there are more reasons as well.

Note: I am not ignoring men's sexual history at all--look what I said above. Men shouldn't be promiscuous either

 

[RocksInMyHead]

I have seen that CDC study, and there are several problems with it:

The biggest one is that women underreport their number of sexual partners (32%), and men overreport (41%).

Average Number of Sexual Partners: By Gender, Country, State, and

When it comes to sex — or your sexual history — it’s easy to wonder what’s “normal.” Can you have too many partners? Too few? What’s average? If you really want to know, a recent Superdrug survey has you covered. Here’s which states are doing it the most, how America compares to other countries...

www.healthline.com

1. That's not what it says. It says that men were more likely to over report and women more likely to under report, but they went both ways (and some admitted to doing both).

2. The primary reason for lying was social - i.e. to a partner or to friends. Social reasons for lying about your number aren't relevant in an anonymous survey. That's not to say that people don't lie on anonymous surveys, but I suspect that those percentages would be significantly lower if that's all you were asking about.

Another study put the average number of sex partners for women at 19

Here's how many people the average person under 30 says they've slept with — and why they could be lying

It's easy to compare the amount of sexual partners you've had with how many others have. According to a recent survey, here's how many people the average person under 30 has had sex with. That being said, here's why you shouldn't stress about your number or anyone else's.

www.insider.com

And it put the average number of sexual partners for men at 26. Doesn't help your point - according to that study, men are still more promiscuous than women.

We really don't know what the number is --a group of women with bodycounts of over 30 saying they have only slept with 4 guys wildly changes the final figures (as well as men exaggerating their number by 500%). There really isn't any *good* study out there to my knowledge.

Fair, but that means the numbers you're using to support your claims are useless too.

Most of the women have had around 10 partners before marriage. But one woman had like 60 (she is a hippy, free-love kind of girl). Including her in the findings throws everything off.

Unless the sample size is large enough. And it only throws off a report on the average number of partners. It doesn't affect a study looking at the percentage of people with a certain number of partners. If the final category in your study is 15 or more partners, then a person with 60 counts exactly the same as a person with 15.

The longer a woman waits to marry, the more partners she is going to have, and women are delaying marriage. In the UK, the average age for women marrying is like 32.

Here is an article on one-night stands. Again, there are really no *good* studies on this either

Here's How Many One Night Stands the Average Woman Has Actually Had | Men's Health Magazine Australia

When you ask a woman how many sexual partners she's had, don't expect an honest answer

www.menshealth.com.au

Now I know you are hung up on this idea of why men might care about a woman's sexual history. I think it is pretty obvious

1. Women with lots of partners (10+) before marriage have a higher divorce rate and rate of unhappiness in marriage.
2. Women with lots of partners are more likely to have had STDs, including HPV
3. Women with lots of partners and a history of abortions can have problems conceiving children
4. Men don't want to feel they are getting compared to a roster of 20 other guys when sleeping with their wife (women don't like this either)

and there are more reasons as well.

None of this is exclusive to women (except for #3, but that's specifically discussing a history of abortions, which is not the same as the number of partners).

Note: I am not ignoring men's sexual history at all--look what I said above. Men shouldn't be promiscuous either

You tossed that in at the end of your last post as a throwaway line after I called you out for focusing on how premarital sex devalues women. Almost nothing that you've said is exclusive to women - the exact same concerns and insecurities are relevant to men who sleep around as well. I would argue that men have a far longer history (centuries!) of promiscuity being considered socially acceptable, but you phrase this as though it's only become a problem since women joined in 60 years ago.

 

[Merrill]

1. That's not what it says. It says that men were more likely to over report and women more likely to under report, but they went both ways (and some admitted to doing both).

2. The primary reason for lying was social - i.e. to a partner or to friends. Social reasons for lying about your number aren't relevant in an anonymous survey. That's not to say that people don't lie on anonymous surveys, but I suspect that those percentages would be significantly lower if that's all you were asking about.


And it put the average number of sexual partners for men at 26. Doesn't help your point - according to that study, men are still more promiscuous than women.


Fair, but that means the numbers you're using to support your claims are useless too.


Unless the sample size is large enough. And it only throws off a report on the average number of partners. It doesn't affect a study looking at the percentage of people with a certain number of partners. If the final category in your study is 15 or more partners, then a person with 60 counts exactly the same as a person with 15.


None of this is exclusive to women (except for #3, but that's specifically discussing a history of abortions, which is not the same as the number of partners).


You tossed that in at the end of your last post as a throwaway line after I called you out for focusing on how premarital sex devalues women. Almost nothing that you've said is exclusive to women - the exact same concerns and insecurities are relevant to men who sleep around as well. I would argue that men have a far longer history (centuries!) of promiscuity being considered socially acceptable, but you phrase this as though it's only become a problem since women joined in 60 years ago.

You must have missed the part where I said that there were really no good studies on this stuff.

The idea that the average man has had 26 sex partners in his life is outlandish, and almost certainly wrong. Women control access to sex, not men. The average guy is not Brad Pitt on the prowl

but this whole numbers thing is irrelevant. My original point was that our society encourages young women to have lots of boyfriends and sex partners when they are young, and then "settle-down" later. You then launched into this whataboutism concerning the small portion of playboys out there engaging in causal sex.

you are completely gaslit on this issue of premarital sex and women. It does not always "devalue" them, but it most certainly *can* devalue them. Men do care about a woman's sexual history, based on the points I stated above. I have been around lots of guys my whole life, and not one of them said "she's had tons of partners, but I don't care".

With men it is different. Many women *admire* men who have had lots of lovers, and young women do not want commitment. Unless a guy has been seriously promiscuous, women view his past relationships as "experience". Hollywood, women's magazines, tv, etc. all portray men who commit to women and seek serious relationships as weak, sentimental, and insecure. "500 Days of Summer" is a perfect illustration.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

You must have missed the part where I said that there were really no good studies on this stuff.

And then proceeded to use studies to try to prove your point. You can't have it both ways. Or are your numbers made up?

but this whole numbers thing is irrelevant. My original point was that our society encourages young women to have lots of boyfriends and sex partners when they are young, and then "settle-down" later. You then launched into this whataboutism concerning the small portion of playboys out there engaging in causal sex.

Our society encourages young men and women to have lots of partners when young and then settle down later. Young men have been encouraged to do this for centuries - women started joining in in larger numbers in the 60s, more or less. And you keep claiming that there's a "small portion of playboys", but you've provided no evidence for that assertion.

With men it is different. Many women *admire* men who have had lots of lovers, and young women do not want commitment. Unless a guy has been seriously promiscuous, women view his past relationships as "experience". Hollywood, women's magazines, tv, etc. all portray men who commit to women and seek serious relationships as weak, sentimental, and insecure. "500 Days of Summer" is a perfect illustration.

Is that an inherent property of women though, or simply a learned behavior? Your examples would suggest that it's learned. Which is my point - men desiring virginity in their partners is a learned behavior that's been sustained by society, stemming from men wanting to ensure that any children born to their wife were theirs back in medieval times. In the current day, with the availability of genetic testing and reliable birth control methods, that's not really relevant anymore and perpetuating the belief is misogynistic.

Bringing things back to where our conversation started, you claimed that men viewing girls who slept around as "damaged goods" was a consequence of society encouraging them to sleep around, then settle down with a "stable" guy. Aside from questioning the basic premise (that only women are encouraged to be promiscuous, or that they are promiscuous in significantly larger numbers than men), my contention is that there's nothing about such a scenario that's inherently damaging to women specifically. Any "damage" is simply insecurity projected by men onto women as a consequence of the values that society has pushed on them. As evidence, I present the last several centuries of the inverse (promiscuous men) being the norm. The concerns that you presented about promiscuous women are equally applicable to promiscuous men, and yet promiscuous men aren't seen as damaged goods - because society has had centuries to set and spread that as the "norm".

 

[Merrill]

And then proceeded to use studies to try to prove your point. You can't have it both ways. Or are your numbers made up?

Our society encourages young men and women to have lots of partners when young and then settle down later. Young men have been encouraged to do this for centuries - women started joining in in larger numbers in the 60s, more or less. And you keep claiming that there's a "small portion of playboys", but you've provided no evidence for that assertion.

Is that an inherent property of women though, or simply a learned behavior? Your examples would suggest that it's learned. Which is my point - men desiring virginity in their partners is a learned behavior that's been sustained by society, stemming from men wanting to ensure that any children born to their wife were theirs back in medieval times. In the current day, with the availability of genetic testing and reliable birth control methods, that's not really relevant anymore and perpetuating the belief is misogynistic.

Bringing things back to where our conversation started, you claimed that men viewing girls who slept around as "damaged goods" was a consequence of society encouraging them to sleep around, then settle down with a "stable" guy. Aside from questioning the basic premise (that only women are encouraged to be promiscuous, or that they are promiscuous in significantly larger numbers than men), my contention is that there's nothing about such a scenario that's inherently damaging to women specifically. Any "damage" is simply insecurity projected by men onto women as a consequence of the values that society has pushed on them. As evidence, I present the last several centuries of the inverse (promiscuous men) being the norm. The concerns that you presented about promiscuous women are equally applicable to promiscuous men, and yet promiscuous men aren't seen as damaged goods - because society has had centuries to set and spread that as the "norm".

When I said "small portion of playboys" I meant the small percentage of men that have lots of sexual partners. Women are the gatekeepers to sex, not men. Average guys, or dudes who are short and fat, are not having lots of sex. Average girls can have sex whenever they want it (even unattractive girls).

Women's standards have risen dramatically in the last couple decades. We keep seeing these articles about how women find 80% of men unattractive:

Women Say 80% of Men Are “Below Average”

Are women’s standards just too high?

goodmenproject.com

author states "I’ll admit it. Out of all the men I’ve encountered in my life, I’ve probably considered dating fewer than 20% of them"

and we see these dating app studies that show 80% of the women going for less than 20% of the guys --how valid they are is disputed. But with more women graduating from college than men, access to social media and dating apps, and other factors like income, women feel entitled to men that are "better" than they are: economically, socially, and in terms of physical attractiveness. That circle of men shrinks every year, women marry later, rack up big body counts, and end up miserable.

And nobody said women need to be virgins.

Is there some reason women can't marry a nice, average guy in their early 20s? A guy who will make a good husband, is religious, honest?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

When I said "small portion of playboys" I meant the small percentage of men that have lots of sexual partners.

I understand what you meant. You just haven't provided any evidence for it.

and we see these dating app studies that show 80% of the women going for less than 20% of the guys --how valid they are is disputed. But with more women graduating from college than men, access to social media and dating apps, and other factors like income, women feel entitled to men that are "better" than they are: economically, socially, and in terms of physical attractiveness. That circle of men shrinks every year, women marry later, rack up big body counts, and end up miserable.

Dating apps are not an accurate representation of the population as a whole. They comprise a relatively small pool of people, and one in which men significantly outnumber women (Tinder, for example, is about 65% men and 35% women). Within the realm of dating apps, you're absolutely right - women are the gatekeepers. Any reasonably attractive woman can go on a dating app and have dozens of potential partners within a matter of days (or even minutes), from which she can pick and choose a match at her leisure. Since, at best, all she'll have to judge them by are a few (often unflattering) photos, brief answers to a couple questions, and maybe a quick chat over text, the choice is inherently shallow. But women aren't entirely to blame for this - men bear some responsibility as well. The behavior of men on dating sites - aggressive messaging, inappropriate photos, only looking for one-night-stands - frequently drives off women who are not interested in those things, or at least makes them much more selective than they would be in real life. I'm not going to claim that a majority of men act like this (because they don't), but with the wide reach of an app, it doesn't take many in a given area to utterly ruin the online dating pool there.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

author states "I’ll admit it. Out of all the men I’ve encountered in my life, I’ve probably considered dating fewer than 20% of them"

Frankly, I'd probably say the same about the women I've encountered in my life. That's pretty normal. My 20% wouldn't necessarily match other people's 20% though - attractiveness is subjective (and not just based on physical appearance).

 

[comana]

When I said "small portion of playboys" I meant the small percentage of men that have lots of sexual partners. Women are the gatekeepers to sex, not men. Average guys, or dudes who are short and fat, are not having lots of sex. Average girls can have sex whenever they want it (even unattractive girls).

Women's standards have risen dramatically in the last couple decades. We keep seeing these articles about how women find 80% of men unattractive:

Women Say 80% of Men Are “Below Average”

Are women’s standards just too high?

goodmenproject.com

author states "I’ll admit it. Out of all the men I’ve encountered in my life, I’ve probably considered dating fewer than 20% of them"

and we see these dating app studies that show 80% of the women going for less than 20% of the guys --how valid they are is disputed. But with more women graduating from college than men, access to social media and dating apps, and other factors like income, women feel entitled to men that are "better" than they are: economically, socially, and in terms of physical attractiveness. That circle of men shrinks every year, women marry later, rack up big body counts, and end up miserable.

And nobody said women need to be virgins.

Is there some reason women can't marry a nice, average guy in their early 20s? A guy who will make a good husband, is religious, honest?

Women being choosy is nothing new. Historically women have had much more to lose in a bad marriage. Women waiting longer today should be no surprise given experience seeing others, grandmothers, aunts, etc suffer bad marriages, divorces, being left as single mothers. Waiting, being a bit more discerning is a wise choice.

Having said that, my daughter is in her late 20s and since college has attended numerous weddings for friends in her age group. She has been in a long term relationship since early college and will be married next year. From what I see, your assessment of women in their 20s may not be very accurate.

 

[Merrill]

Women being choosy is nothing new. Historically women have had much more to lose in a bad marriage. Women waiting longer today should be no surprise given experience seeing others, grandmothers, aunts, etc suffer bad marriages, divorces, being left as single mothers. Waiting, being a bit more discerning is a wise choice.

Having said that, my daughter is in her late 20s and since college has attended numerous weddings for friends in her age group. She has been in a long term relationship since early college and will be married next year. From what I see, your assessment of women in their 20s may not be very accurate.

I didn't say every girl gets into hookup culture in college, but it is a problem.

Women should be selective, but they need to be realistic as well. My younger guy friends complain that women do very little to better themselves, even in college. They aren't cultured, have few interests, lack purpose and ambition, and don't bother developing charm or wit. But they expect the guys to look like Chris Pratt, have a 6 figure job, a beach house, etc.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Women should be selective, but they need to be realistic as well. My younger guy friends complain that women do very little to better themselves, even in college. They aren't cultured, have few interests, lack purpose and ambition, and don't bother developing charm or wit. But they expect the guys to look like Chris Pratt, have a 6 figure job, a beach house, etc.

While it has been over ten years since I was last in college, I can say that this was certainly not my experience. Those types of women were certainly around, and I ran into a few, but they were hardly the rule. I suspect that it's a function of the school and the people that you associate with. And while I wouldn't presume to judge your friends, I've noticed that people who complain about potential romantic partners being boring and overly choosy tend to be boring and overly choosy themselves.